ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Biomechanical evaluation of various fixation strategies in oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background contextTypical oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) generally employed either the single lateral screw (SLS) or dual pedicle screws (DPS) for instrumentation, each with their own limitations. PURPOSE: The study aimed to investigate the biomechanical properties of two additional fixation strategies including single reverse pedicle screw (SRS) and dual overlapped screws (DOS) compared with SLS and DPS. STUDY
designA finite element (FE) analysis study.
methodsA L2-5 finite element model was established and validated with L4/5 as the experimental segment. Four fixations including SLS, SRS, DPS and DOS were established on the segment respectively. The L5's inferior surface was set immobilized. Follower-loaded bending moments were imposed on the superior surface of L2 to record the segment's range of motion (ROM) and maximum stress (MS) on the screws, cage and cortical bone under F-E (flexion and extension), bending (left and right) and rotation (left and right).
resultsThe model was validated feasible through comparison with previous studies. Regarding the immediate stability: (i) the ROM was significantly lower in DPS and DOS compared to SLS and SRS during F-E and rotations; (ii) compared to DPS, DOS illustrated mildly increased ROM during F-E motions, and left rotation; (iii) compared to SLS, SRS showed an increase of ROM during flexion but a reduction in extension, without obvious distinctions during other motions. Regarding the mechanical response: (i) DPS and DOS illustrated lower MS on the screws, cortical bone and cage than SLS and SRS during most motions; (ii) Compared to DPS, DOS exhibited increased MS during most motions on the screws, cortical bone and cage; (iii) Compared to SLS, SRS demonstrated an increase of MS on the screws during flexion but an reduction during extension, along with decreased MS on cortical bone and cage during most motions.
conclusionDual-screw systems (DPS and DOS) demonstrated enhanced immediate stability for the segment and mitigated mechanical loading for the instrument compared to single-screw systems (SLS and SRS); For the former, DOS exhibited comparable immediate stability to typical DPS, indicating the potential as a viable alternative; For the later, SRS manifested similar stability to traditional SLS, with less stress loading on the cage and cortical bone, indicating less risk of instrument failure in the long term. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The study provides biomechanical references to achieve differentiated and individualized instrumentation for patients undergoing OLIF surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.